All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario_limonciello@dell.com>,
	pali.rohar@gmail.com, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: i801: Allow ACPI SystemIO OpRegion to conflict with PCI BAR
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:39:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160511113933.6868d115@endymion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1462781834-7890-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>

Hi Mika,

First of all, thank you very much for working on this problem, this is
highly appreciated.

On Mon,  9 May 2016 11:17:14 +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> Many Intel systems the BIOS declares a SystemIO OpRegion below the SMBus
> PCI device as can be seen in ACPI DSDT table from Lenovo Yoga 900:
> 
>   Device (SBUS)
>   {
>       OperationRegion (SMBI, SystemIO, (SBAR << 0x05), 0x10)
>       Field (SMBI, ByteAcc, NoLock, Preserve)
>       {
>           HSTS,   8,
>           Offset (0x02),
>           HCON,   8,
>           HCOM,   8,
>           TXSA,   8,
>           DAT0,   8,
>           DAT1,   8,
>           HBDR,   8,
>           PECR,   8,
>           RXSA,   8,
>           SDAT,   16
>       }
> 
> There are also bunch of AML methods that that the BIOS can use to access
> these fields. Most of the systems in question AML methods accessing the
> SMBI OpRegion are never used.
> 
> Now, because of this SMBI OpRegion many systems fail to load the SMBus
> driver with an error looking like one below:
> 
>   ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000003040-0x000000000000305F
>        conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000003040-0x000000000000304F
>        (\_SB.PCI0.SBUS.SMBI) (20160108/utaddress-255)
>   ACPI: If an ACPI driver is available for this device, you should use
>        it instead of the native driver
> 
> The reason is that this SMBI OpRegion conflicts with the PCI BAR used by
> the SMBus driver.
> 
> It turns out that we can install a custom SystemIO address space handler
> for the SMBus device to intercept all accesses through that OpRegion. This
> allows us to share the PCI BAR with the AML code if it for some reason is
> using it. We do not expect that this OpRegion handler will ever be called
> but if it is we print a warning and prevent all access from the SMBus
> driver itself.
> 
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110041
> Reported-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> Changes to v2:
> 
>  - Return -EIO instead of -EPERM
>  - Added ACK from Rafael
>  - Added Link and Reported-by tags
>  - Tagged for stable inclusion
> 
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

I have tested this on my Dell OptiPlex 9020 MT system, and it works
well. Gives me access to the SPD EEPROMs on my memory modules.

Below is my review.

> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c
> index 5652bf6ce9be..d69ad96460b5 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-i801.c
> @@ -247,6 +247,13 @@ struct i801_priv {
>  	struct platform_device *mux_pdev;
>  #endif
>  	struct platform_device *tco_pdev;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If set to true the host controller registers are reserved for
> +	 * ACPI AML use. Protected by acpi_lock.
> +	 */
> +	bool acpi_reserved;
> +	struct mutex acpi_lock;
>  };
>  
>  #define FEATURE_SMBUS_PEC	(1 << 0)
> @@ -720,6 +727,12 @@ static s32 i801_access(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr,
>  	int ret = 0, xact = 0;
>  	struct i801_priv *priv = i2c_get_adapdata(adap);
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&priv->acpi_lock);
> +	if (priv->acpi_reserved) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock);
> +		return -EIO;

I see this has been discussed before, but I don't think EIO is
appropriate here. You didn't even try to issue an I/O to the device, so
how could it fail? EBUSY would better reflect the situation IMHO.

> +	}
> +
>  	pm_runtime_get_sync(&priv->pci_dev->dev);
>  
>  	hwpec = (priv->features & FEATURE_SMBUS_PEC) && (flags & I2C_CLIENT_PEC)
> @@ -822,6 +835,7 @@ static s32 i801_access(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr,
>  out:
>  	pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(&priv->pci_dev->dev);
>  	pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(&priv->pci_dev->dev);
> +	mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> @@ -1260,6 +1274,89 @@ static void i801_add_tco(struct i801_priv *priv)
>  	priv->tco_pdev = pdev;
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +static acpi_status
> +i801_acpi_io_handler(u32 function, acpi_physical_address address, u32 bits,
> +		     u64 *value, void *handler_context, void *region_context)
> +{
> +	struct i801_priv *priv = handler_context;
> +	struct pci_dev *pdev = priv->pci_dev;
> +	acpi_status status;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Once BIOS AML code touches the OpRegion we warn and inhibit any
> +	 * further access from the driver itself. This device is now owned
> +	 * by the system firmware.
> +	 */
> +	dev_warn_once(&pdev->dev, "BIOS is accessing SMBus registers\n");
> +	dev_warn_once(&pdev->dev, "Driver SMBus register access inhibited\n");

Given that you have priv->acpi_reserved to record if we've been there
before, maybe you could move the warnings below, and use simple
dev_warn? I suspect it's cheaper than dev_warn_once.

> +
> +	mutex_lock(&priv->acpi_lock);
> +
> +	if (!priv->acpi_reserved) {
> +		priv->acpi_reserved = true;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * BIOS is accessing the host controller so prevent it from
> +		 * suspending automatically from now on.
> +		 */
> +		pm_runtime_get_sync(&pdev->dev);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (function == ACPI_READ) {
> +		u32 val = (u32)*value;

I'm confused. acpi_os_read_port is writing the result of the read to
"val", it doesn't read from it, so I don't think it needs to be
initialized?

Also, looking at the acpi_os_read_port() call in
drivers/acpi/apei/apei-base.c, it would seem you can cast *value
directly in-place, without using a temporary variable. This would limit
the overhead.

> +		status = acpi_os_read_port(address, &val, bits);
> +		if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> +			*value = val;
> +	} else {
> +		status = acpi_os_write_port(address, (u32)*value, bits);
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock);
> +
> +	return status;
> +}
> +
> +static int i801_acpi_probe(struct i801_priv *priv)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *adev;
> +	acpi_status status;
> +
> +	adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&priv->pci_dev->dev);
> +	if (adev) {
> +		status = acpi_install_address_space_handler(adev->handle,
> +				ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO, i801_acpi_io_handler,
> +				NULL, priv);
> +		if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status))
> +			return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	return acpi_check_resource_conflict(&priv->pci_dev->resource[SMBBAR]);
> +}
> +
> +static void i801_acpi_remove(struct i801_priv *priv)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *adev;
> +
> +	adev = ACPI_COMPANION(&priv->pci_dev->dev);
> +	if (!adev)
> +		return;
> +
> +	acpi_remove_address_space_handler(adev->handle,
> +		ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO, i801_acpi_io_handler);
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&priv->acpi_lock);
> +	if (priv->acpi_reserved) {
> +		priv->acpi_reserved = false;

Is this actually needed? priv is about to be destroyed anyway.

> +		pm_runtime_put(&priv->pci_dev->dev);
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&priv->acpi_lock);
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline int i801_acpi_probe(struct i801_priv *priv) { return 0; }
> +static inline void i801_acpi_remove(struct i801_priv *priv) { }
> +#endif
> +
>  static int i801_probe(struct pci_dev *dev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  {
>  	unsigned char temp;
> @@ -1277,6 +1374,7 @@ static int i801_probe(struct pci_dev *dev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  	priv->adapter.dev.parent = &dev->dev;
>  	ACPI_COMPANION_SET(&priv->adapter.dev, ACPI_COMPANION(&dev->dev));
>  	priv->adapter.retries = 3;
> +	mutex_init(&priv->acpi_lock);
>  
>  	priv->pci_dev = dev;
>  	switch (dev->device) {
> @@ -1339,10 +1437,9 @@ static int i801_probe(struct pci_dev *dev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	}
>  
> -	err = acpi_check_resource_conflict(&dev->resource[SMBBAR]);
> -	if (err) {
> -		return -ENODEV;
> -	}
> +	err = i801_acpi_probe(priv);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;

Before your patch we would return -ENODEV in case of conflict. Now we
are returning -EBUSY instead. I see no reason for this change. Or if
you think this is actually needed, that seems independent from what
your patch is doing, so it should be a separate patch.

>  
>  	err = pcim_iomap_regions(dev, 1 << SMBBAR,
>  				 dev_driver_string(&dev->dev));
> @@ -1439,6 +1536,7 @@ static void i801_remove(struct pci_dev *dev)
>  	pm_runtime_forbid(&dev->dev);
>  	pm_runtime_get_noresume(&dev->dev);
>  
> +	i801_acpi_remove(priv);
>  	i801_del_mux(priv);
>  	i2c_del_adapter(&priv->adapter);

This looks racy. Until i2c_del_adapter() is called, the SMBus may be
used. So I think you should call i801_acpi_remove() after
i2c_del_adapter().

>  	pci_write_config_byte(dev, SMBHSTCFG, priv->original_hstcfg);

Thanks again,
-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-05-11  9:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-09  8:17 [PATCH v3] i2c: i801: Allow ACPI SystemIO OpRegion to conflict with PCI BAR Mika Westerberg
2016-05-11  9:19 ` Pali Rohár
2016-05-11  9:39 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2016-05-11 11:40   ` Mika Westerberg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160511113933.6868d115@endymion \
    --to=jdelvare@suse.de \
    --cc=jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mario_limonciello@dell.com \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=pali.rohar@gmail.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.